W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2003

RE: AS&S and WG consensus (was Re: abstract syntax and RDFS)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:57:29 +0100
To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDAEAKCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


> RDFS permits one to make statements about classes as instances.
> Why would you expect there to be a migration path from RDFS to OWL Lite?
>
> Is it that the migration you expect is only for certain subsets of RDFS,
> and you can't imagine those subsets not including rdfs:seeAlso?
>

It is clear that certain features of RDF and RDFS are not available in OWL
Lite.
The ones that I believe there is WG consensus about are:

- classes as instances, i.e. for three non-built-in URIrefs <a> <b> <c> you
may not have the following three triples:
  <a> rdf:type <b> .
  <b> rdf:type <c> .

- unrestricted use of blank nodes
   use of rdf:nodeID in an unrestricted fashion is not allowed in OWL Lite
e.g.
<a> <b> _:blank .
<a> <c> _:blank .
is not in OWL Lite.

- subproperties and subclasses of builtins.
 e.g.
  <a> rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf .
  is not in OWL Lite

- properties taking both Literal and Object values


===

There are other features of RDF and RDFS that are excluded from the OWL Lite
discussed in AS&S that we have not discussed (or not discussed adequately)
and for which I do not yet see a WG consensus.

e.g.
- the prohibition of all use of xml:lang
- the prohibition of all use of rdf:parseType="Literal"
- the prohibition on using rdfs:label on both classes and instances
- the prohibition on using dc:creator on both classes and instances
- the prohibition of all use of rdfs:seeAlso, rdfs:isDefinedBy

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 09:02:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:57 GMT